Bad Attitude

To The Editor,

What the hell do you think you're doing?

Your feature article "Bulldozing the Barrio" (Tucson
Weekly, March 6) had a catchy title and an interesting cover
image, but the impression you have undoubtedly (unwittingly?)
created is damaging to those of us committed to contributing vital
energy to Tucson's heart, trying to heal it after years of neglect
and the kind of abuse your article refers to.

The subhead of the article, "The Downfall of Downtown,"
refers to regrettable errors made 30 years ago in the throes
of government urban renewal projects, but not once does the article
refer to the positive aspects of the current reality. In
fact, the entire far right-hand column is a litany of critical
quotes about our downtown, and even the author states,"Locals
don't often linger downtown and tourists routinely bypass it."
You, of all people,know this is not true--you have your
offices downtown, you're here everyday! You know better--yet for
some despicable reason you choose to paint a dismal picture of
our downtown neighborhood.

I finally see that it must be true--as has been stated before
by many others who've been offended by what you've had to say
about topics and issues--you revel in the negative attitude. I
do not mean to imply injustices and corruption should be ignored
and happy stories take their place. But I question the motive
and level of consciousness that so easily disregards any positive
or hopeful aspect of an issue.

We may not all have the proper ethnic background to warrant your
paper's political concern, but those of of us who have created
businesses downtown have done so with a pioneering spirit, in
a territory that has been tough to survive in. Sure, Tucson's
downtown is not a slick city, but it is good and real, alive and
unique. Yet with your bad attitude and 30-year-old ghosts, you
have effectively told every one of our citizens downtown is not
worth a visit. In this case, Tucson Weekly, you seem
to BE the problem. Think about it.

Editor's Note:While we applaud the entreprenurial
efforts currently going on downtown, no amount of positive pioneering
can rectify the injustice committed there three decades ago. Those
ghosts you refer to still have descendants and relatives living
among us. And while this sad chapter in our history may be over
and done, we as a community must never forget. That was clearly
the point of our story.

Penny Press

To the Editor,

Regarding "On the Poor Side of Town" (Tucson
Weekly, February 22) and "Bulldozing the Barrio"
(Tucson Weekly, March 6): TheWeekly needs
to be congratulated on its increasing capacity to write stories
and give information to its readers that reflect the long history
of the "penny press" in this country. Thanks to you
for the gall and guts to publish interesting stories about the
people of Tucson, stories the so-called mainline press, the Star
and Citizen,do not have the courage to pursue.

Since the early 19th century, the "penny press" has
gone right to the core of issues and struggles of the working
class.

As Michael Kazin writes in The Populist Persuasion: "From
the 1830s on, inexpensive urban newspapers called the penny press
framed and promoted the Jacksonian viewpoint for an avid clientele
of artisans, laborers, and homemakers who streamed into the cities
from the countryside and Continent. Such pioneers of the penny
press as James Gordon Bennett of the New York Herald and
Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune published graphic,
dramatic accounts of crime, politics and business that explicitly
took the side of their working-class readers against various well-born
and/or arrogant enemies in courts, countinghouses and paternalist
moral reform associations.

Bennett, an early Jackson supporter, liked to compare his periodical
to what he called, in an original bit of invective, the "Wall
Street press"--more expensive journals that catered to businessmen,
professionals and upper-class citizens who wanted to punish plebeian
drinkers, gamblers, and brawlers. "The banks and corrupt
cliques of men control them altogether," he charged in 1836

And the Tucson Weekly is free, not even a penny. What
a deal--keep up the focused work about the underpinnings of Tucson
life.

As I recall, Regan said in her review that La Malinche
was a bad play, badly acted--as apt and concise a statement as
could be made about an embarrassingly corny and clumsy play marked
by both wooden and histrionic acting.

I've been a devotee of theater since my teens and a subscriber
to ATC since 1974, and I, for one, am glad to read a review that
so accurately describes the work in question.

--Laurie Pew

Term Paper

To the Editor,

Regarding "Term Warfare" (The Skinny, Tucson Weekly,
March 6) concerning my four-year, two-term bill: "If this
(four-year term) proposed became law, it would make Arizona the
only state in the Union with a four-year term for its lower house."
You go on to add that the compelling reason for two-year terms
is that they keep politicians closer to their constituents.

Data obtained from the National Council of State Legislatures
show that, as of April 1996, there were 38 states and the District
of Columbia with four-year terms for their legislatures. Of these,
four have four-year terms for both the Senate and House and one
(Nebraska) has a unicameral legislature.

Periodically, I continue to survey my constituents in District
13, as I did in our monthly Town Hall on March 15, and ask whether
they prefer two- or four-year terms. This time the results were
two-to-one for four-year terms. Most of the time it's more like
three-to-one in favor of the longer term.

Perhaps those 38 states and one jurisdiction, plus the many constituents
to whom I have spoken in District 13, know something that is of
value. Perhaps four-year terms contribute to effective representation,
rather than weakening democracy.

The Skinny replies:Andy, there are 38 states with
a four-year term for state senate. Only four have a four-year
term for the lower house. Those paragons of virtue and role models
for American democracy are Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland and Mississippi.

That people, many of whom apparently live in your district,
have become tired of participating in representative government
is not a good reason to dump a system that has worked relatively
well since statehood. Four-year terms for representatives is simply
an obscene attempt to escape voter scrutiny. That a lazy electorate
might buy into it, and other bad ideas, is something the founding
fathers warned us about; and it's why, thank God, we are a constitutional
republic--in which bad ideas like yours are hard to implement.